I am sitting in the dining facility here minding my own businesss, too lost in the root beer float I'd made to worry about anything surrounding me ...when I was tapped on the shoulder by another soldier, pointing out to me a conventional good-looking airman who had just walked by. Already, soldiers sitting at my table are talking about what they'd like to do to her.
"That's nice," I said, getting back to my root beer float.
"Sergeant, when it comes to talking about women, you're at the level of a 7th-grader," a soldier told me, then went back to talking about the woman.
My unresolved masculinity almost got the best of me; I wanted to defend my manhood by talking about the women I've been with in the past - and join in on the conversations, as if somehow it would prove that I am, indeed, a man.
But my feminism got the best me and rather than joining in the exercise of objectification, I kept quiet. On the walk back to my tent, however, I began to think about the incident, and what the soldier had meant when he, because of my refusal to join in to an obvious male-bonding moment of objectifying women, equated misogyny with manhood.
Perhaps I should have been insulted; but perhaps, just perhaps, the world would be a more equal, pleasant place where women weren't objectified and raped if every man were to look at women through the eyes of a 7th-grader. After all, as children, we saw our opposite genders as equals and friends. For the most part - and as long back as I can remember, boys and girls go along. There were no such things as misogyny, and groups of boys never sat around and insulted groups of girls or turned them into objects.
As children, boys also looked up to their mothers, believing them to be the women who could do anything; not only did they look to their mothers for comfort and care, but these young boys, and I remember my days as a boy, genuinely loved their mothers, without regard as to their gender.
So, what changed? Where along the road to adulthood do males turn from loving, respectful boys to men who objectify? What are the social forces and rites of passage that turned them from lovers to objectifiers? To be sure, not all men objectify, but those who do objectify, it seems, assert more "masculinity" than those who do not.
For me, the masculinity can be attributed to several thing - and porn being among them. After all, pornography is almost every boy's rite-of-passage. This means, then, that on masculinity, the objectification of women and the consumption of porn go hand-in-hand. That is, where porn paints the picture of women as always readily available, always desiring the same types of sex men want, and never saying no, it also turns women into an accessory. Rather than an equal partnership where sex and pleasure are negotiated and shared, porn makes men assume that he can have sex with women whenever, however and wherever.
Further, as boys and young men sit around in front of a television screen, viewing pictures of women in various stages of sexual conducts, the one thing that's removed from porn is the humanity of sex. Thus, at a young age, men are conditioned to believe not only are women there to pleasure them, but that there is no emotion in sex. It's no wonder why some men can readily objectify and rape women. After all, if women are viewed as 'less-than-humans,' and if it's assumed that all women want sex all the time and that no women ever says no, then the protestations of women mean very little, and further, even when women are drunk and unresponsive, the man would assume (having been conditioned to do so) that she wants sex.
Add this to the belief that sex defines a man and the result is what we see everyday - young men, fueled by their own beliefs in masculinities, objectifying and raping women - often without knowing what they're doing is wrong.
So what's the solution here? To be sure, it's not censorship; but I do believe the feminist movement needs more male presence. Often times, we focus on ensuring that young girls have role models who teach them the values of being strong and assertive, yet, even in our movement, we lack the male presence to teach young men to deconstruct their masculinities and deal with women not as objects, but fellow human beings.
Further, given that the major source of women's oppressions and plights are the actions of men, there also needs to be more focus on men's studies - that is, how men fit within patriarchy and what gender roles require of them. After all, if men's actions are causing women pain, then we need to figure why men are taking those actions.
While there are resources out there (NOMAS as an example), they are far and few between - and if we want to take the next step into not only empowering girls and women, but also teaching boys and men to be loving, caring human beings toward women and themselves, then we need to include them in on not just the social justice movement, but also the academic movement. After all, not only are women's humanities, but also the humanities of men, are depended on it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Men, masculinity, porn and feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12809
After all, as children, we saw our opposite genders as equals and friends. For the most part - and as long back as I can remember, boys and girls go along. There were no such things as misogyny, and groups of boys never sat around and insulted groups of girls or turned them into objects.
That's not the way I remember it at all. Sure, the insults weren't overtly sexual, but they were extremely gender-aligned.
Actually, I do remember some pre-pubescent boys doing sexual harassment. Stuff like yanking at girls' swimsuits, loudly announcing that they were going to spy on a girl changing, that sort of thing.
And, at least where I grew up, boys and girls started to segregate themselves around first grade. "Boy germs", "No girls allowed"... I remember all sorts of immature gender mockery, on both sides. If you voluntarily hung around with someone of the opposite sex, you'd be accused of being -- eeeewwww! -- in loooooove.
Then in grades 6-8, the idea of romance being icky wore off, and you began to be expected to hang around with people of the opposite sex -- but only for romantic purposes. Junior high kids had a great deal of trouble understanding that a guy and a girl could be friends. Junior high was also the time when the sexual harassment began to cross over from childishly obnoxious to predatory. Some of the same actions, like yanking at a girl's swimsuit, became less about embarrassing her and more about giving her a scare.
This was all well before the internet, so if you were a kid wanting to get your hands on porn, you had to work harder at it.
"Junior high was also the time when the sexual harassment began to cross over from childishly obnoxious to predatory. Some of the same actions, like yanking at a girl's swimsuit, became less about embarrassing her and more about giving her a scare."
I definitely agree. When I was in 7th grade, I was harassed by a group of boys and I remember being scared and threatened and really freakin angry at them, especially because of the sexual overtone of the things they said. Middle school kids already have a detailed knowledge of gender and sexual mores.
6th grade was when the sexual harassment started at my Queens, New York, Intermediate School.
Three unfortunate young women - who were unusually tall and had the misfortune of being the first girls to develop breasts - were constantly bombarded with sexual harassment in the halls and in class.
One girl literally couldn't go to the restroom without every boy in class loudly commenting about the fact that she was about to go to the bathroom and pull her pants down.
She actually became ashamed to go to the restroom and would only sneak to the bathroom in gym or lunch so she could go without her boy classmates being aware of it.
Now, this happened in 1979, so almost none of these boys had access to porn (one of the boys, who had a really sleazy dad, did sneak in a Penthouse magazine one day, but that was the only porno I saw in 2 years in middle school).
So, I really think it's a gross oversimplification to blame porno for broader sexism.
Doesn't the US Air Force have a lot of institutional sexism - including widespread rape of female cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, and a widespread coverup by Air Force top brass?
Maybe that has a little more to do with rank and file male airman sexism than generic porn.
Also, isn't the very rank "Airman" (the lowest enlisted rank in the USAF - equivalent to Army or Marine Corps Private or Navy Seaman) itself a sexist job title, cause it's AirMAN even if the "airman"in question is a woman?
Objectifying is merely seeing a person as a vehicle for one's pleasure, thereby taking away their humanity.
Do I recognize a beautiful woman when I see one? I sure do. Last time I checked, my penis is still in good working condition, albeit a bit sandy.
The difference, though, is that objectification focuses on the pleasure of the objectifier, solely, without regard to the other person feelings, needs or desires, to include consent.
Why does it matter? It matters because our beliefs lead to our actions. If I view a woman as just a piece of meat, without regard to her desire or humanity, then I am going to treat the way I want, and not the way in which can be mutually benificial to us both.
I agree. There's a huge difference between noticing someone is good looking (and still realising they are humans with feelings etc) and looking at them as purely objects of sexual desire which you have a right to stare at/make comments about.
Posts like this have always left me with a question... What is inherently wrong with objectifying, and how exactly do you distinguish it from being physically attracted to someone?
Objectification will always occur during sexual intercourse (at all levels) regardless of how much any given person loves any other given person. The difference between bad objectification and good objectification is when both parties' desire are acknowledged and respected - this turns the objectification into desire, which is healthy. This is what turns a woman from an object to a subject. In order for a situation between two individuals to be healthy, there needs to be a back and forth, rather than desire moving in one direction. (Such as from a male to a female, with no consideration for her desire or pleasure.)
For more on this, I would check out S. Lamb's "The "right" sexuality for girls".
I disgaree but maybe we are working off different ideas of objectification? Its possible to see someone sexually without forgetting they are a person worthy of respect too.
Again, that's my point. "Seeing someone sexually" is objectification. But the way you go about objectifying someone makes a big difference.
Why do you think that seeing someone sexually has to be objectifying?
I think there are other ways of objectifying people as well (eg. seeing cleaners as 'deserving' to clean and not treating them as fellow humans) and what distinguish's objectification from not being objectified is the level of respect and humanisation.
I disagree. Feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum identifies seven distinct aspects of objectification: Instrumentality, Denial of autonomy, Treating as inert, Fungibility, Violability, Ownership, Denial of subjectivity. She argues that some aspects of objectification are morally acceptable in sexual intimacy, and indeed some (instrumentality) are inevitable. Others (violability) are not. Some can be acceptable if mutually understood and accepted as limited and temporary (surrender of autonomy). Thus, "objectification" is not really a sufficiently specific phenomenon that it may be condemned as such.
If objectification is inherent in desire then to be with anyone who desires you seems more trouble than it's worth. There's no "good" way to objectify someone because when objectifying you cannot have complete respect. Personally I'm not fucking anyone who does not respect me 110%
Thanks for bringing this up. I've always wondered, where is the line? I know women who will saying, "Damn, that guy is so hot, I'd like to..[insert some sexually explicit comment]" just the same as men doing it. Is that objectifying or simply talking? Is it objectifying if it's explicit? Or is any sort of "that person is hot" comment objectification?
And what if the significant other is OK with it? Once, a friend of mine's boyfriend walked up to her and squeezed her boobs and went "honk honk." She giggled. I was aghast. If my S.O. did that, I'd've kicked him. Similarly, there's things that I'd probably let my S.O. get away with in private that I wouldn't let him get away with in public.
I think actions speak louder than words. If someone respects you, they should act respectfully around you.
When you are physically attracted to someone, you don't forget that he/she is a "someone" to be attracted to.
When you find "that ass", "those knockers", and "that wet pussy" to be attractive and you forget that those body parts are part of a human being worthy of respect as a human being, you are objectifying: you are breaking what is a whole human being down into so much flesh.
But it's still possible to objectify parts of someone through the course of back-and-forth desire, without that objectification being negative. Objectification can be anything from "wet pussies" to "your eyes are beautiful". Appreciating someone's parts during the course of sexual desire in an appropriate circumstance is desire, not objectification exactly, and occurs in every sexual relationship. Sexual attraction is more or less based on some degree of objectification.
I can understand your argument, but at the same time, I never look at someone's wonderful eyes and forget that they're a human being. They may have beautiful, attractive body parts that I find particularly pleasing, but I would never break them down to simply those parts. That's the difference between appreciation for beauty and objectification: the latter means that their humanity is forgotten or downplayed.
That's my point - objectifying + respect +consideration for the other person = desire/healthy objectification. It's still objectification but it's definitely different from catcalls on the street.
Be careful here though. Because I can be attracted to a man on the street and still know he is a man... even if I am just looking at his ass.
So how to know if/when the person doesn't consider the other a human being? Because I think it's pretty hard to believe that anyone could look at another human being and not think of them as a human.
But I guess for the purposes of understanding there's no other way to describe it, else no one will ever be able to explain the difference between attraction and objectification. I just wish we could get a better definition because even I get confused sometimes about what is ok and what isn't when it comes to attraction.
By "consider them a human being" I mean "deserving the respect attributed to human beings" - that is, you respect their basic rights. Any rapist doesn't view their victim to be a human being because they are violating their right to their own body.
"Because I can be attracted to a man on the street and still know he is a man... even if I am just looking at his ass."
Well, in that case, you view him as a human being, and whereas I would think you were being incredibly impolite if you stared at and made numerous comments about his butt, I don't think that's necessarily objectification, so I can understand your point.
It's the difference between "those" and "his/hers" that really gets me, especially when it's done in a group setting, with each person confirming the other person's selective view.
"By "consider them a human being" I mean "deserving the respect attributed to human beings" - that is, you respect their basic rights. Any rapist doesn't view their victim to be a human being because they are violating their right to their own body."
Absolutely I agree, but we are not talking about rapists or sexual assaults but rather "just" objectification, which happens without any physical contact or even without any words being uttered and often with the object not even being aware it occurs. That's where it's hard to define.
""Because I can be attracted to a man on the street and still know he is a man... even if I am just looking at his ass."
Well, in that case, you view him as a human being, and whereas I would think you were being incredibly impolite if you stared at and made numerous comments about his butt, I don't think that's necessarily objectification, so I can understand your point."
Ok... but what about a magazine like Maxim say. It objectifies women. Yet the person looking at it isn't making any rude comments. They might stare, but only at a picture, not the person. That's where this gets tricky. Are they doing anything wrong? Or is it just the magazine who is at fault but not the consumer? How to give a good answer to these questions?
Perhaps I should just drop this whole discussion, I've just been striving for awhile to get good definitions for some of these concepts and I always love the feedback I get on these boards regarding these questions.
"Perhaps I should just drop this whole discussion, I've just been striving for awhile to get good definitions for some of these concepts and I always love the feedback I get on these boards regarding these questions."
Please don't, this is exactly the kind of conversation I was trying to spur with the original question... It seems as though there are a lot of conflicting opinions on what is or isn't objectification, and which types of thoughts and behaviors are appropriate or not.
"Because I can be attracted to a man on the street and still know he is a man... even if I am just looking at his ass."
In which case, you are not actually objectifying him. If all you do is look at his ass and it never crosses your mind for a moment that he is a human being, that is objectifying, because then he becomes an object.
"So how to know if/when the person doesn't consider the other a human being? Because I think it's pretty hard to believe that anyone could look at another human being and not think of them as a human."
You can't always know, of course, because we can't get inside each other's heads. But we are all capable of "look[ing] at another human being and not think[ing of them as a human." It happens in war (makes it easier to kill and/or rape the enemy if you don't think they are a human being), genocide, all of the "-isms", and even just with people who are not part of a group we belong to or are familiar with. I know I don't think about the humanity of every single person I come into contact with.
The problem, then, is when that causes actions that harm the other person/people physically and/or mentally. It's impossible to police people's thoughts and I don't think anyone would want to (except the most staunch and extreme ideologues) but we can examine their actions, point out how they are wrong, and try to steer them away from them, with the hope (but no surety, unfortunately) that this will also simultaneously cause the person who is doing the objectifying to see the objectified person as a three-dimensional subject.
It certainly crosses the line when you do this at work and in a situation where the person being objectified has little to no recourse legally as well as cannot just "leave" the job. For example, when in the military.....
Objectification is a problem because it reduces another person to a collection of parts to be acted upon for another's pleasure.
There is a great article discussing objectifiation at
http://vegansagainstpeta.blogspot.com/
Excerpt:
This trend, this societal obsession with the naked female form, fits the definition of objectification because it “emphasizes and prioritizes” the things that can be done to that form – things ranging from ‘desiring’, ‘fantasizing about’, to ‘touching’ and ‘having sex with’. Even the action of ‘seeing’ is emphasized – the whole point is not just what this woman looks like but that she is showing herself. No individual image need carry such an emphasis – the pattern of endless repetition clearly does so.
...objectification is linked with violence. If the principal feature of women is their suitability to be acted upon, to be seen and desired and touched and had sex with, then their other traits (such as the ability to choose, to make rational decisions) are obscured, and actions, such as rape or harassment, which conform to that ‘essential nature’ (sexual object) while conflicting with the secondary trait (rational chooser) make a lot more sense. Indeed, if a woman’s essence is to be desired, then any action which displays desire, from wolf-whistling to badgering her into unwanted sex, can be seen as a ‘compliment’, a benevolent act.
How sad that we have to define the difference between objectification and physical attraction. Objectification is what it sounds like-- removing evaluation of a person's appearance (good or bad) from your view of the person as a whole human being. There is nothing wrong with attraction, there is something wrong with divorcing your view of a person's body from their personality, actions, etc., i.e, as if that "body" were nothing more than an object.
[quote]That is, where porn paints the picture of women as always readily available, always desiring the same types of sex men want, and never saying no, it also turns women into an accessory. Rather than an equal partnership where sex and pleasure are negotiated and shared, porn makes men assume that he can have sex with women whenever, however and wherever.
[/quote]
Marc,
Being male doesn't make a person incapable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy. Being schizophrenic does that.
Wana try coming up with a reason why men are the way they are without resorting to claiming that they are all incapable of telling the difference between a fantasy and reality?
Joe, read again - I never said men weren't able to tell the difference between fantasies and realities. I said the nature of porn makes it so that men view women as vehicles for their pleasures.
If you're feeling guilty and defensive, it's probably because it's true.
"porn makes men assume that he can have sex with women whenever, however and wherever."
That sounds pretty accusatory to me.
I don't see why it's accusatory. He's just saying that porn conditions men and boys into believing that the "manly" or "masculine" way to treat a woman is to degrade her, just as giving a girl baby dolls when she is younger is in a way conditioning her to be a mother (which I find kind of scary, but that's a different subject). The difference is that porn just does it in a more direct way.
Also, I don't think he's saying that ONLY men are being brainwashed by porn. He's not saying that they're being brainwashed just because they're men. However, it's probably safe to say that it's mainly men being brainwashed because the majority of porn (particularly porn that objectifies women) is directed towards men.
Porn definitely doesn't have everything to do with the assault and objectificatio going on within our society, but I think it has quite a bit of influence on men.
Much of the time that I see porn, it involves the woman being raped. The woman clearly doesn't consent, but the man persists and has sex with her anyway. What a lot of people don't realise is that that is RAPE.
I've been noticing a trend among some of my past boyfriends. Whenever we get intimate, it feels as if I'm just acting in one of those rape scenes in porn videos. I say no, he ignores me. The problem is the fact that people seem to think that I'd have to be kicking and screaming for it to be rape, and therefore, if I just said "no" and I wasn't kicking and screaming, and he had sex with me anyway, then I wasn't raped.
THAT is what's dangerous in our definition of rape. THAT is one thing that is very dangerous about porn.
Marc-Thank you for being a feminist. We need more of you, :).
Much of the time that I see porn, it involves the woman being raped. The woman clearly doesn't consent, but the man persists and has sex with her anyway. What a lot of people don't realise is that that is RAPE.
Um... porn that depicts rape is a tiny subset of porn.
The majority of porn story lines is a girl wants to have sex with a guy. Check out tube8 dot com for reference to what the majority of porn is like.
I encourage you to watch the film "the Price of Pleasure." In this film, some of the top selling porn DVD's are examined, and some 80% of scenes contain some sort of abuse (verbal or physical) of the woman. I don't see how it makes it any better that the women pretend that they like gagging or being called dirty sluts.
While rape porn itself might be a small section of the porn industry, most porn has nothing deep to say about human sexuality and nothing positive to say about women. I assume you are a feminist since you are posting on this site, which means that you likely understand the consequences of harmful, sexist images in advertising and other aspects of media. Can you not see porn in the same critical light?
I'm talking about my own experiences with porn, particularly the kind of porn that some of my exes have watched. Also, I mainly brought it up because someone mentioned hentai as being a woman-friendly type of porn early, which is a statement that I strongly disagree with considering the fact that the vast majority of hentai IS just rape porn.
you are right. i found this fascinating series of papers about the effects of porn viewing on romantic relationships. Check this out:
he experimenters found that men who
viewed the sexually explicit films (both erotica and pornography) showed more dominant
behaviors, touched their female partners for longer periods of time, and ignored their partner’s
contributions more often that males who viewed the news clips. Furthermore, men in the
pornography condition interrupted their partners more and showed more anxious behaviors than
those in the other two groups....
Female participants were blind to the first
portion of the experiment. Results showed that women’s behaviors correlated highly with their
male partner’s behaviors. Women whose partners had viewed sexually explicit materials showed
similar levels of anxiety, physical proximity, partner touch, and gazing as their partners. This
behavioral matching, argue the researchers, is particularly notable. It suggests that women are
affected by a partner’s use of sexually explicit material, even when they are unaware of such use.
isn't that amazing? in like a really horrible way, of course, but amazing nonetheless?
you are right. i found this fascinating series of papers about the effects of porn viewing on romantic relationships. Check this out:
he experimenters found that men who
viewed the sexually explicit films (both erotica and pornography) showed more dominant
behaviors, touched their female partners for longer periods of time, and ignored their partner’s
contributions more often that males who viewed the news clips. Furthermore, men in the
pornography condition interrupted their partners more and showed more anxious behaviors than
those in the other two groups....
Female participants were blind to the first
portion of the experiment. Results showed that women’s behaviors correlated highly with their
male partner’s behaviors. Women whose partners had viewed sexually explicit materials showed
similar levels of anxiety, physical proximity, partner touch, and gazing as their partners. This
behavioral matching, argue the researchers, is particularly notable. It suggests that women are
affected by a partner’s use of sexually explicit material, even when they are unaware of such use.
isn't that amazing? in like a really horrible way, of course, but amazing nonetheless?
here is a section of an academic paper on the effect of pornography on the watcher/user's view of women:
Studies have examined the impact of pornography on attitudes of gender roles. For example, Garcia (1986)...found that use of erotic material (nonviolent, nondegrading, sexually explicit materials) did not have any impact on their attitudes towards
women. However, use of pornographic materials (sexually explicit materials that included elements of coercion or violence) were positively correlated with beliefs that women should occupy more gender-defined, traditional roles, they should be less independent than men, drink and swear less, exhibit less interest in sexual behaviors, and maintain more traditional roles in marriages.
one could argue it's a chicken/egg thing. but still. seems pretty straightforward that porn either influences men's opinions about women, or men that have a "traditional" attitude about women are more likely to seek out porn.
Great call for male presence in Gender studies - Male feminist here!
Two things
1. As Dan said, gendering ( the separating of men and women) starts early and more than likely were occuring in school but may not have been as sexual or as obvious.
2. I actually have a big problem with the attacking/blaming of pornography for misogyny. Firstly it assumes that only men watch porn. I have many female friends who watch porn and im sure there are tons more. To say that porn is for male view reinforces the idea that it is for male view ( perpetuating the ideal acts as policing mechanism) and thus adds to ideal of female purity *winks at Jessica*.
Secondly, much like video games and movies, people blame these outlets as causes of actions ( typically violent) but what they don't see is that the market produces the product. Thus the market for pornography produces sexuality in a certain way. Also, much like we tell children that video games aren't real and that hurting someone in a game must stay in the realm of the game, we must understand that sexual acts and their representative treatment of women, must stay in the bedroom. Just because a person may *blank* someone in the face during sex, it doesn't make them any less of a human being.
I am not saying that pornography doesn't have problems, I actually hate the racial categorization of latinos and blacks and normalization of whites in other categories.
I am glad you made the comment regarding pornography. I am a woman, I am a feminist, and I enjoy looking at porn from time to time. Do I look at heterosexual man dominating and disrespecting female porn? No, I have a range of the different kinds I look for. But like you said, there is a problem with the way sex is portrayed in most porn, and that is why the way it is filmed and distributed needs to be changed. Porn from a feminist perspective! yea!!
I have a problem with the attacking/blaming of pornography, too, for the same reason you do, and yet I also don't think it is that simple. Yes, the desires of the market influence what will be made and sold, but what is made and sold also influences the desires of the market. In other words, it's a two-way street.
But that's also why this issue is so complex, and won't be solved by something as simple as censorship.
Maybe this sounds naive, but I want to hear more stories of situations like this in which men like you - who actually think about this issue and are concerned about the misogynist attitudes - don't just keep quiet, but actually speak up to their fellow men. What might you say to them to set a better example?
I did end up saying something, but one of the things I've learned is to pick and choose my battles - sometimes, it's much better to ease them into this then to yell and scream right then and there. I've got a year here, there'll be plenty of time to try to influence young military men into having a feminist mindset.
Hell, it took me five years, and I STILL don't get the majority of things, and I still catch myself doing unfeministic things many times. It's a lifelong process.
"Maybe this sounds naive, but I want to hear more stories of situations like this in which men like you - who actually think about this issue and are concerned about the misogynist attitudes - don't just keep quiet, but actually speak up to their fellow men. What might you say to them to set a better example?"
I am someone who is a huge proponent of bystander intervention, and anytime I do any sort of workshop with men and boys (or women and girls) I make it a point to get men to think about the ways they not only perpetrate a rape culture, but to notice and stop these acts when they occur. I believe language is a huge part of the reason violence against women occurs, and has a huge impact on the ways we think about sex (which I talk about more below). I ask workshop participants to think of names for men who have sex and names for women who have sex. The names for men are empowering and dominant; the names for women are oppressive, submissive, and shaming. This shows participants that we are actively participating in violence against women when we use these words, especially since these words are often ones rape survivors will here during the act of rape.
As for what I personally do to intervene, I usually say something like "that's not cool" or "that's sexist and I don't appreciate your language". As someone who has been corrected on his sexist language by a man, it is very powerful when another man tells you he finds your language demeaning, especially since the social act of "doing" masculinity is an act to begin with and most men do respect women and are manipulated by patriarchy to believe that being sexist is OK, even required. This does not, however, excuse us from our oppressive actions, but it is important to dissect the cultural forces that contribute to hegemonic masculinity.
As for how we talk about sex, think of all the ways we describe sex in popular discourse - banging, nailing, fucking (not necessarily an "oppressive" word, but it makes me cringe when men only describe sex this way, as it seems void of any emotion or attachment to another human being - all IMO of course), hit (IE "I'd hit that"), etc. Extremely violent language that can be attributed to, IMO, mainstream pornography.
As for Marc's main post, porn is really weird for me. It was definitely the first time I ever saw "sex," and it is still something I look at every now and then, but I am still trying to figure out how and when my sexual thoughts and actions are oppressive and how I can be a (pro)feminist man yet still have desires and attractions to certain acts which may or may not be considered "feminist". John Stoltenberg's "How Men Can Have (A) Sex" has been valuable in this arena.
That all sounds a little too Christian to me (and I don't mean the good kind of Dorothy Day/Martin Luther King-type Christian, I mean the evil douchebaggish Jerry Falwell/Randall Terry-type Christian).
I support women's liberation, and I'm troubled when I see men being assholish to women in public places - but I'd like to call them out on their douchebaggery without seeming like an asexual moralistic wimp (which is how your lectures to men come across to me).
I don't think it's "wimpy" to stick up for other people. Isn't defining compassion as a "wimpy" trait part of the problem Marc's talking about?
"That all sounds a little too Christian to me (and I don't mean the good kind of Dorothy Day/Martin Luther King-type Christian, I mean the evil douchebaggish Jerry Falwell/Randall Terry-type Christian).
I support women's liberation, and I'm troubled when I see men being assholish to women in public places - but I'd like to call them out on their douchebaggery without seeming like an asexual moralistic wimp (which is how your lectures to men come across to me)."
As Sara said, the whole idea that a man can be defined as a "wimp" is exactly the problem. Attitudes like yours that force men into rigid gender boxes that pressure men into making, crude, sexist statements about women. Saying "hey, that's sexist" is not preachy. Additionally, I do not and would never speak for anyone other than myself. The bystander intervention strategies I have developed for my workshops and practice in my personal life are ones that have come from hours of sitting down with the women in my life, whom I love and care about, and asking them how their lives would be different if the threat of sexual assault was non-existent, and further asking them what they would like to see from me and other men. Granted, the women in my life do not represent all women, but each woman I have spoken to plans much of their daily routine out of a very real fear of men's violence. To not ask these questions, to not start a conversation, is very problematic. Additionally, to say you support women's liberation and not address the role you have in oppressing women as a result of your male privilege is a ridiculous notion. The attitude displayed in your last sentence reeks of someone who wants all the praise from women for being a hip, cool "feminist" but wants to still be part of the boys club. You can't have it both ways IMO.
Also, asexual? WTF? I'm always flabbergasted by the latent homophobia of men who are so scared of being seen as not heterosexual that they will not stick up for women - and I don't mean this in a protector way, I mean working with women to end sexism and eradicate gender-based violence. Clearly, a man who is willing to stand up and say something cares more about women than a heterosexual male who decides to sit and do nothing out of fear of being labeled "gay" or "asexual".
Stephen - don't blame me for society's sexism, I'm a product of my environment, not it's creator!
And you didn't really answer the question - how can a non sexist man confront sexism, without being attacked as being unmanly?
This is a real problem - and can't be solved with moralistic lectures!
"how can a non sexist man confront sexism, without being attacked as being unmanly?"
Wow, if you are really completely unwilling to give up any of your male privilege in order to combat inequality and sexism, then you are by no means an ally to feminists.
"Stephen - don't blame me for society's sexism, I'm a product of my environment, not it's creator!
And you didn't really answer the question - how can a non sexist man confront sexism, without being attacked as being unmanly?
This is a real problem - and can't be solved with moralistic lectures!"
First off, what Punchbuggy Green said.
Your first point? Simple response: it may not be your--or anyone's--fault, but it sure as hell is your and our responsibility.
What aspects of "manliness" do you actually feel are worth retaining? I'm really serious about this, because in my mind this notion of manliness does not see women as human beings with agency, nor does it even acknowledge GBTQI people who identify as men. "Masculinity" is a fragmentary and fragmenting thing, and I look forward to when there are as many masculinities as there are people who identify as men.
The pornography discussion is a fascinating, deep one and I'll have to come back to it tomorrow! Some really thought-provoking comments on this post.
"asexual moralistic wimp"
WTF is your deal?
You are awesome.
Aww, thanks!
I have generally found that family life has a lot more to do in cultivating a feminist than the media. Matriarchal families, families where women are treated as equals, etc - the sons I've met from such families generally have a healthy interest in porn but don't objectify women like in Marc's anecdote. It's the families where the father is absolute king that I find more sons who have more archaic gender values at best, little respect for women at worst.
Obviously society does have an input, because the sons that come from matriarchal families/etc don't hold opposite gender values from those who are raised in a more "traditional" household. They don't expect to be treated like a "traditional" son would treat a woman. But my point is that I think family counts for more than porn or media. The way your parents raise you and the values they instill direct the types of friends you make. After kindergarten, you might spend more time with your peers than your parents, but they push you in one direction or another and they still encourage you towards their values.
"...the world would be a more equal, pleasant place where women weren't objectified and raped if every man were to look at women through the eyes of a 7th-grader."
Well...maybe, if you went back several more grades before 7th.
To at least preschool.
I've worked with children quite a bit, and while gender segregation is very much alive and well in preschool, it's not until kindergarten that kids start really displaying what they've taken from the culture.
Thank you for this, Marc. I agree that feminism needs more of a male presence, especially in academia.
Because feminism is a women's movement, aspects like deconstructing masculinity get ignored. This is to be expected, because the last thing a women's movement needs is to have men at the center of it. We spend so much of our lives catering to the needs and desires of men, we're not about the devote our feminism to it. Thus the resentment whenever anybody brings up men's isses on this forum.
I know I will probably get flamed for this, but as a woman, and as a feminist, I feel personally alienated and insulted whenever I see somebody whine "what about the menz?!" I understand that it's a good way to shut down MRA trolls and that it can be cathartic, but the overall influence of that kind of attitude is not going to be positive. What about the men, indeed? That's a good question, not a joke. What about the men?
Further, given that the major source of women's oppressions and plights are the actions of men, there also needs to be more focus on men's studies - that is, how men fit within patriarchy and what gender roles require of them. After all, if men's actions are causing women pain, then we need to figure why men are taking those actions.
I completely agree with you about this.
I will have to think about what you have said about porn. You have made a very good argument for how exactly it is that porn can contribute to sexism and misogyny (as opposed to being a product of it).
Personally I see a difference between the MRA/"what about the men?" aspect and allwoing feminism to also examine masculinity. Its a fine line to walk but I think that when feminism treats masculinity as these monolithic entity then it runs into huge problems because I don't think you can get a comprehensive view without studying both to a degree.
Also, for men who are beginning in feminism I have found that pointing out the way the patriarchy screws them over (to a lesser degree obviously) then they are more interested in what it then does to women.
I agree, most of all, that men need to be involved in feminism. Most women get the message, and have stood up to the challenge... It's men who need to be educated and recruited now.
I've found, with the people I've been with, that porn affects actions during sex, but not really anything outside of that. And in my experience, kids can be some of the most sexist little pricks I've ever met.
If I were you, I wouldn't care much about what anyone else was doing. I'd know that my masculinity hadn't been challenged, because I have my own sets of values, and what those soldiers were doing was foolishness. You know what you stand for, and you hold on to it - that's real manliness. I think talking about past lovers would be dumb... You don't need to flex balls. You know you're a man.
You said:
"I agree, most of all, that men need to be involved in feminism. Most women get the message, and have stood up to the challenge... It's men who need to be educated and recruited now"
I actually disagree with this pretty strongly. From where I sit alot of women DO NOT get the message. And it bothers me alot. So many women think feminism is silly and actually want to continue to perpetuate alot of the things we are striving against.
We should seek to reach these women because if we can't even convince women of feminism then how will we convince men?
I totally agree, I'm a women and gender studies major, and so my classes are mostly women with the occasional 2-3 men ( me included). I find that most of the girls taking the course believe that being a women makes them understand the material. When they speak on the other hand, its completely opposite. Granted they have the experience of being oppressed but it doesn't necessarily translate into understand the complexities that come with it.
Hm, these are both interesting comments. I've taken an online class on families/sex, and most people seemed pretty progressive in that. But I'm from SF, so maybe I have kind of a liberal standing point.
I was thinking about feminism in the sense that most women believe that they should be treated equally at work, they should be able to dress as they wish, they shouldn't be mocked for their taste, shouldn't allow a man to boss them around, should be able to get an abortion, are never to blame when beaten... I mean, the older women I know loosely agree with that, while my friends in their 20s know they have certain rights, and should be treated a certain way.
What did you guys mean when you mention feminism?
I definitely think your perspective may be a result of living in a very liberal community. I grew up in a midwestern suburb. We had to take a modern problems course that discussed political issues in order to graduate from my high school. Let me assure you, the majority of women in my class did not believe that women had a right to abortions or health care, or the right to dress as they wish.
I now attend a fairly liberal state university, and I STILL find it to be the case that lots of young women do not understand or embrace feminism. For example, I was on a study abroad trip the other summer where I shared an apartment with two other American women. The apartment across the way was rented by a group of American men. When these men decided that it was okay to call us "bitches" and "sluts", all three of us women were seriously upset by it. However, my fellow female students refused to call the men out on it for fear that they would "sound like feminists or something". Instead they went out to purchase more conservative clothing. Seriously.
I have not found that kind of incident or mindset nearly as unusual as I would wish. Particularly on abortion, I've found my generation to have a larger majority against such rights than my mom's generation.
I find that pretty upsetting to hear. Makes me glad to be where I'm from... I ain't leaving!
Cory, from where I'm sitting (in a moderate sized town in the Southeast United States) you sound very sheltered.
Most women here most decidedly do NOT know these things. Its frankly terrifying to me. Even if they've heard them, so many have been brain washed into outright rejecting the things one would hope would be basic and beyond question.
I have friends who work in case management for the Drug Court, and the stuff you hear about from there... its bad. Very bad. Poverty + Fundamentalist Christianity in the South combine to create absolute horrors.
There really is an enormous amount of outreach/education that needs to be done.
I'm starting to resent being generalized here. I admit that San Francisco is a liberal city, but I've lived in many other parts of the state, and half my family looks down on feminists, including me.
What 'things' are you referring to?
I for one don't think you sound sheltered. You sound like any other person whose only ever had their own experiences and thus interprets the world through their own experiences. By which I mean you are no more 'sheltered' than any other person who hasn't had multiple life experiences, including people who use the patronizing term 'sheltered'.
I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. I did not intend to be insulting.
What things? I intended the rights you had previously cited that women were aware of. Equal Rights, Equal pay. Right to medical care. Even basic things like the right to not be physically or sexually assaulted.
For many poor women in the south, even if they have heard of these ideas, they don't feel like they apply to them. (And in the political, and social situations they live in, they don't. They simply don't have adequate recourse, safety or access to things that are fundamental rights).
And Religion reinforces it all. Its a brutal, tragic cycle that has gone on for generations of abject poverty. With religion reinforcing and leeching off the desperation and vulnerability.
I found "Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity" to be a very interesting read. One thing that I took away from it was this:
Why is masculinity a positive quality for men to possess? How are things like strength a necessarily masculine quality? Why is not being "manly" an insult for a male? Is the struggle to be a human being not enough?
I hate seeing this in movies as well, it seems like the most offensive thing someone can call man is a woman. I see this in Judd Apatow movies a lot.
"I can see your pussy from here!"
"Do you need to adjust your tampon?"
Why is that? What is so horrible about womanhood and the lack of "masculine" traits that its become an insult?
One of my favorite books! I used the book for my date rape research back in college and got to email professor Jensen a few times. Amazing guy.
I'd struggled (and I still do) to find my nitch within feminism, and I think the book crystal-clearly pointed me toward the direction of deconstructing masculinity and analyzing gender roles within the male population.
Although keenly aware of women's challenges and oppressions, I've learned from Jensen's book that given my privilege and the propensity for men to listen to me because I am male, it's more appropriate for me to work within the male population for a feminist cause.
I owe Jensen a lot just from reading that book.
[i]Why is that? What is so horrible about womanhood and the lack of "masculine" traits that its become an insult?[/i]
Nothing is wrong with womanhood, it's just that no one expects much from a woman.
A man gets a job because it's expected that he get a job. If he doesn't, he's a deadbeat.
A woman gets a job because she wants a job. If a she doesn't get a job, she's a homemaker.
Wow. Fucking wow. You say there's nothing wrong with womanhood, and then you go on to say no one expects anything of it. That seems pretty wrong to me.
Men make as much of a choice to work as I do. Frankly, if a woman is voluntarily unemployed and can't make her rent, she's a deadbeat, too.
I'm really glad I expect more from myself than you seem to of my gender.
You're conflating my expectations of women with my view of society's expectations of women. These are two different things.
Please don't think for one second that I don't expect you to pay your own way through life, take care of your own family, and do your part for the country.
I'm pretty sure he was speaking for society at large and normative expectations of gender.
I don't think he was speaking about his own opinions. (I hope, anyways).
I'm pretty sure he was speaking for society at large and normative expectations of gender.
I don't think he was speaking about his own opinions. (I hope, anyways).
Women are oppressed, a subordinate gender - to not be masculine is to be a part of an oppressed and "less than group".
That's one of the major reasons why most men (including myself, to be quite frank) desperately do NOT want to be unmasculine!
Masculine = independent, strong, powerful, master of your own domain, able to take care of yourself, all very powerful traits.
Feminine = dependent, weak, powerless, dominated by others, have to be taken care of by others - all things that are bad things to be.
As for the value of strength - are you kidding?
Seriously, physical strength is very important - for a lot of guys (including me) it's a job requirement (I'm a carpenter), but beyond that if you are physically strong you can defend yourself - nobody is going to abuse you if you are strong!
Mental strength, psychological strength, emotional strength all have their values too - they keep you safe, and powerful, and make your life a lot better.
Why wouldn't ANYBODY - male or female - not want strength?
Unfortunately, traditional femininity is all about NOT being strong - to be feminine a woman has to be weak, and being weak is the opposite of the traditional definition of masculine, which is above all about strength.
I think we need to abolish femininity, and to universalize masculinity - so that ALL human beings, not just men, get to be independent, strong, powerful, masters of their own domain and able to take care of themselves - those should be the traits of HUMANITY, not just masculinity.
I didn't say that strength wasn't a quality to be valued, I asked why strength was a necessarily masculine quality.
Many qualities of masculinity are wonderful qualities to possess but why they're attributed to naturally present in men rather than women I don't understand. The fact is these qualities aren't natural, but conditioned into us.
As for the rest of the qualities you listed--yes those are largely regarded as respectively masculine and feminine. My point is that we need to push those categorizations away. Not all masculine qualities are positive, nor are all feminine qualities negative. Violent and Nurturing are two good examples. Abolishing femininity would abolish the good and bad qualities of the feminine. And then we'd be left with only the good and bad masculine qualities.
Violence, Aggression, Competitiveness (in a bad way), Lack of Emotions
in addition to what you have listed above--is that all we really want to be left with? Can't we do away with masculinity and femininity all together and just have positive and negative human traits that aren't specific to a gender?
I really recommend Jensen's book on this subject for more. It's an eye opener.
"I think we need to abolish femininity, and to universalize masculinity - so that ALL human beings, not just men, get to be independent, strong, powerful, masters of their own domain and able to take care of themselves"
As long as woman are always going to exist you don't destroy a descriptor word (femininity) that correlates to their gender. You should change what the gender words mean, not the labels. Ie, femininity means stregth, power, ect.
(sarcastic) I also like how you thought we should drop the traditional feminine traits and adopt the masculine. You obviously think the masculine descriptors are the best. It's quite infantile to have come to the conclusion you did. However, I'm sure changing the meanings of what the genders stand for is gonna be long because guys like you are too insecure to evolve. You're still playing by the gender rules. I'm sure if you asked a modern women what womanhood is they would say strength, independance, autonomy,... but this idea cannot solidly germinate in the overall societal mind because guys like you still perpetuate, through fear of being associated with anything feminine, an inferior association and consequently status for the feminine and you block the new descriptors of femininity from saturating the old.
ouch :D lolbut I totally agree. I had a guy in one of my WGS class act the complete opposite way ( but with the same mindset) and said that the masculine was terrible and that all males are oppressors. I said " umm, I'm not" and he continued to say how being a man we sexualize women and such. Then I said " but I'm gay" lol. Not much of an argument there.
He was working on this idea of masculine focusing on the negative characteristics and didn't even notice his heteronormative focus on his declaration of "men". I think any kind of extreme remodification of a system will never work since it will always favor one over another.
I would like to say that being gay isn't a get-out-of-jail free card. I have run into many gay men who will, without permission, grab a woman's breasts or ass, brutally critique what she's wearing and describe exactly how it makes every body part appear (normally calling her a cow or something in the process), and then say it's okay because they're gay. Gay guys can be sexist, sexualizing jerks, too.
"I think we need to abolish femininity, and to universalize masculinity"
So we should get rid of those useless traits like nurturing, caring, gentleness, kindness, patience, selflessness, forgiveness, understanding, and all those other traits which many would define as 'feminine'?
Wouldn't it be better if so-called 'feminine' and 'masculine' traits were equally valued in general and regardless of the gender/sex of the person who embodied those traits?
Masculine = independent, strong, powerful, master of your own domain, able to take care of yourself, all very powerful traits.
Feminine = dependent, weak, powerless, dominated by others, have to be taken care of by others - all things that are bad things to be.
Take away the invented labels and you see that all humans are equally capable of expressing the full range of these experiences. People have been brainwashed into thinking that the labels actually mean something with respect to whether you were born with a penis or vagina (or some combination thereof).
These labels as you've defined them are a matter of opinion and tradition, and they are not rooted in nature or science. You don't believe me, check history. Men have been dominated by other men for most of it. By your definition that would make 4/5 (made up number, but you get the point) of the planet "feminine" at any given time in history.
Seriously, physical strength is very important - for a lot of guys (including me) it's a job requirement (I'm a carpenter), but beyond that if you are physically strong you can defend yourself - nobody is going to abuse you if you are strong!
I'm surprised because with tractors and cranes and modern equipment it seems that muscular strength is way overrated in the grand scheme of things. Sure it might take two of me to lift something you can lift, but that just makes you more efficient. But remember a machine can do better than us both.
And as far as strength and defense, this has been a moot point once men invented weapons. And considering the murder stats for men, how's that physical strength working out?
I wouldnt be so sure men invented weapons. In the chimpanzees the female is the one credited with inventing hunting tools and using them to jab and kill their prey.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/171619/error?cat=4
It was also the first time tehy've noticed a moneky making weapons used for hunting and killing.
http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/6092
Heres a link that decsribes it in more detail
Way to step up, Marc.
This is amazing to hear a post like this in which all males are not subjecting themselves to the objectifying behavior. Even though you subtly commented on the woman of conversation, you shouldn't feel afraid to defend your beliefs! A lot of men (and women) are unaware of what feminism is and they may not realize their behavior is unacceptable. The only way to make a change is to speak up and bring awareness to the issue. While I recognize it may not be easy to change their whole outlook on life, you may strike a chord with them that could change their viewpoints.
Although I obviously agree that children aren't inclined to disrespect the opposite gender, their comment, "Sergeant, when it comes to talking about women, you're at the level of a 7th-grader," only shows that they have the maturity and intellectual understanding of a 7th grader themselves. The conditioning of sexist behavior starts young, and does need to be addressed by parents.
It's an interesting point about your suggestion more "men's studies". I have never really thought anything more about men's issues, than our society is patriarchal, so why would we need to further study it when everything caters to men? Investigating why men do certain things would be quite interesting, and certainly needs to be addressed. Thanks for your input!
Marc,
you don't need Catholic shame if you have your feminist shame, apparently. But that certainly doesn't puts your masculinity in question, whatever that concept still embodies in this post-modern days. I wish I knew ;)
But from reading what you write here I do get the feeling that you think you're taking something from a woman by appreciating her physically and that you have been taught (childhood...) that your desires with respect to women are inherently wrong, and hurtful to them, and society at large.
I have been taught the same thing and I was an involuntary celibate for far too long, simply because I wasn't allowing myself to accept that this was a legitimate part of me. I eventually did, though, and, in my experience, if there's one thing women hate more than drooling guys making comments about their ts&as, it's men who aren't able to fully embrace their desires.
Because if they aren't able to deal with that part of themselves, they will never be able to equally deal with another human being and his/her desires.
"Objectification" is usually used as a conceptually problematic keyword in feminist discourse either denoting general disapproval of the fact that men are apparently more easily aroused visually than women (and that their demand is being catered to everywhere, that's part of the porn thing you mention) or trying to express that phsysical appreciation should always be accompagnied by a never clearly identifiable degree of non-physical empathy for the person appreciated, which, of course, is a point of merit when it comes to an interaction, but is pointless when it comes to merely recognizing and appreciating a woman on the street, or an airwoman on the airfield (sorry, not a military expert).
Of course, when it comes to an interaction, my first rule applies as well: you cannot fully empathize with another person if you don't allow yourself to be honest to yourself about your own desires with respect to her.
For what it's worth, this -
http://saucebox.almeidaisgod.com/?p=85
- is one of the best posts about male desire and feminism that I have read.
Johnny, I am perfectly healthy and have a great sex life, thanks - I don't need your approval.
Further, I have no guilt and certainly no qualms about being attracted to or having sex with women - I choose to, however, not to view and treat women like the only thing they're good for is sex.
No, objectification is not used to disapproval of male sexuality. Objectification is used to denote the fact that men view, talk about and treat women as pieces of meat.
Men aren't more visually stimulated than women. That's the oldest myth in the book thats been used to justify men objectifying women when there is absolutely nothing inherent about it.
becstar,
we will probably never be able to find out why that is the case (could be cultural, at least partly), but there's quite a bit of empirical research out there that proves that they indeed are. And I didn't say "objectifying" and I didn't say "inherent".
Two papers -
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n4/abs/nn1208.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/15011.abstract
Well, I've seen reports of scientific studies that show that women are just as visually stimulated as men are. Can't find the sources right now, though but they do exist
Same. I would say however that men are more socialised to believe that men are more visual and so justify it that way while women are taught that 'good' women are not that way.
There are a lot of studies which purely focus on men's response to it and completely exclude women which has probably helped cement it as a truth. Also they often don't take into consideration *what* they are being shown - given most porn is aimed towards a male audience it is not surprising that women, on average, show less of a response in *some* studies. That problem is dealt with here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812750
Where the visual stimuli is aimed for a female audience sexual arousal goes up massively. Not really surprising given that hetero women aren't exactly going to be turned on by hetero male porn.
This is not the exact one I have read before but comes to similar conclusions:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-3XWJKG7-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=406765cb2cd6a889db7f6858530b230d
becstar,
interesting. Clearly more research and more methodology controlling is necessary in this area. But if women are as visually arousable as men, it still begs the question why women aren't paying for visual stimuli to the extent that men are? Maybe they can be as aroused by the stimuli, but it works differently? Moreover, maybe there's a problem with respect to the definition of arousal. The British Channel 4 once did a cool documentary on female sexuality and they had a couple of women be examined by the Kinsey institute during pornographic arousal - they (and a male control group) had to watch two films, one picked by men ("alltime Kinsey favorite") and one by women ("similarly classic"). The physical indicators of arousal were there during both films, but the subjective scale the women had to indicate with a "joystick" showed more arousal during the female chosen (romantic) film. I guess there are all kinds of possible explanations for this discrepancy, but it is there, while there was none for the men.
I'm not saying that women and men (when we are generalising) get off to the same visual material because I think that is unrealistic but I don't think it should matter what the visual stimuli is.
I don't find it at all surprising women aren't paying for it as much as men when you consider the circumstances. For starters its a matter of access. There are hardly any strip clubs with male strippers in comparison to those with women and even then quite often they don't strip down all the way, so what's the point? Then there's porn which is predominantly marketed towards men. I can't remember the exact statisitics but for every scene of oral performed on a woman there's dozens of oral performed on a man. Again, as a hetero female, why would I want to pay for that?
+ + + + + + +
(sometimes I really wish I could hit "liked" more than once)
Thanks for the links!
"I don't find it at all surprising women aren't paying for it as much as men when you consider the circumstances. For starters its a matter of access."
I totally do not think this is the issue at all. If there was a demand for it - it would exist. That's how capitalism works.
And where I live - there are many male strip clubs around, with full nudity and all. Now I live in a big city (Toronto), so maybe that's not fair, but even when away at school, a much smaller town, I went to a male strip club before.
Same with porn. There's alot more porn made by women for women then posters on feministing ever give credit to. Problem is it generally doesn't sell as well. So again, if there was more demand for it, it would exist more.
I am personally very visually stimulated and I love to look at sexy men. However I can't deny that men seem to be obsessed with it, and while I somewhat am too, I don't think my sexuality is neccessarily typical of all women. So somehow female visual stimulation must be different, else we'd be seeing men objectified alot more then we do. Or perhaps I'm wrong and it's just a matter of time before society catches up and does this more.
Capitalism doesn't magically conjure things there's a demand for. The whole point of advertising is to create a thing there didn't used to be a demand for. Underarm shaving, for example - there wasn't some outcry for it, Gillette needed more sales so they made it up. On the other side, there is a demand for some things that don't get marketed. In the '80s, there was a demand for comfortable female clothing. Designers were personally upset by this so they refused to make any. Women, still needing clothes, bought what was available and didn't get their comfortable clothing (this is all outlined in Susan Faludi's "Backlash"). And reality TV - it's well-documented that there wasn't a sudden huge, overwhelming demand for it instead of dramas and sitcoms; they're just so much cheaper that TV executives insist on them. The reality TV takeover was not some organic, grassroots initiative from the audience.
Capitalism isn't some magic outside force that intuitively knows the will of the people and then bestows it upon us - it's made of people who have biases, pre-conceived notions, a fear of taking risks, and an incentive to ignore demands for things that aren't maximally profitable.
Although you raise some good points in general I would disagree since anyone is free to start whatever business they want, sell whatever they want, market whatever they want, etc.
If there is a large demand for say male strip clubs - someone will create it. Why wouldn't they? If people can make money doing something they will do it. Especially now with the recession.
If nothing else why can't a woman create such an establishment? Or a female run company use male objectification in marketing? They could do it easily. Well they do do it to a certain extent. As demand rising expect this will increase.
True, anyone can start a business. Not everyone can start a successful business, however. I personally do not have the business sense or the access to capital it would take to start one. This is not to say that it's impossible, just that it's not as simple as you're making it sound.
I think the question of demand is an interesting one, particularly in regards to female porn. Women are socialized to believe that all porn degrades them, that women aren't visually stimulated and that, on a certain level, porn is cheating. Given access to porn that disproves these believes might change their attitude towards it and create demand, but that doesn't mean there's a large, pre-existing demand for it. How are we supposed to know the demand when women often won't admit it to themselves?
And, of course, female-centric porn does exist, it just isn't mainstream. Getting something niche into the mainstream is much harder than simply starting a business. You'd have to either have enough money to start a business that can rival decades-old porn companies, or convince people in the pre-existing companies to produce it and market it aggressively. That is unlikely and also leads to the problem of feminist porn being in bed with mainstream porn producers. Making feminist porn isn't difficult, but putting it in a position to be an easily available alternative to the current porn industry is.
Also, your logic just seems a bit circular to me. How does a product come to be? There's demand for it. How do you know there's demand for it? The product exists. If the product doesn't exist, it's because there's no demand. In actuality, I'm sure there are demands that go unfulfilled all the time, because you still need someone to recognize the demand, decide to satisfy it, and do it successfully. The lack of a Mexican restaurant in town doesn't always mean there's no demand for Mexican food, sometimes it just means that it closed because they specifically were bad at it and no one's opened a new one.
There is less of a "demand" for male strip clubs, porn designed for women, male prostitutes, etc. because women have been socialized for hundreds of years to deny their desires and sexuality.
Men, on the other hand, have been taught that having sex and objectifying women = manliness.
And the more one pursues these activites, the more of a "man" you are.
There is nothing inherent about traditional gender roles. We need to break them down and recognize them for the BS they are.
I had believed the same thing as you weeks ago.
It's a completely false statement. ActiveMRI and other brain function scans show a marginal difference between the two.
The misunderstanding arises out of the word "significant" when used in statistical terms versus laymen's terms.
Marc,
you certainly don't need my approval, but you're certainly defensive...
"No, objectification is not used to disapproval of male sexuality."
In feminist discourse it is, in my impression, most often used that way.
"- I choose to, however, not to view and treat women like the only thing they're good for is sex."
And who does that? You think your fellow soldiers do because they trade ideas about what to do to a woman? Have you *ever* listened to women talk about men? Are they also looking at us like we're only good for sex?
We may have different standards of evaluation, but I guess I wouldn't be able to come up with even 2 guys who think "women are only good for sex." The one who does think that way isn't a particularly happy person.
I guess we should agree to disagree.
Then you obviously haven't met very many guys or have blantantly chose to ignore the signs that they do feel that way - possibly because by you posts you seem like you are the type who justify you objectification of women through desire? They are two completely different things.
becstar,
I can only recommend you have a look at the link I posted in my initial reply to marc, may clarify a couple of things.
It makes an awful lot of assumptions about traditional gender roles and I'm surprised that as a male you are posting it. It seems to be implying that no matter how much men try to respect women they will never truly be able to because they will inherently objectify them the minute they desire someone.
First off, the assumption that desire is objectifying. Desire does not have to be objectifying. You can appreciate a that a person does deserve respect and is more than a sexual object while still desiring them. To claim otherwise takes the onus off men who do objectify women through desire and make excuses that it's "natural". It's not; it's misogyny.
Secondly, it's implying that men cannot help themselves - in particular that they "can't help" if they end up staring at a woman's boobs. I call bullshit. I believe that (some) men are actually able to control themselves! I know, it's a radical thought given that men are taught that it's inherent and that they can't help it but I'm sure if they thought for two seconds they would somehow manage it. Again, it's taking away from the fact that men do actually have a brain and if they did use it to think about how staring at women's boobs is objectifying then maybe they could actually manage to stop themselves. To claim otherwise is to fall into the trap of "she deserved/wanted it because she was attractive" line of thinking.
you're beginning to walk a line into dangerous sexism here.
As a man with a veritable shit ton of female friends, I can say that, yes, it does happen. I think the real issue is not necessarily its happening but more its frequency in relation to what else goes on in the relationships between these people.
In my experience, I've found that men are more likely to use sexy body parts as a bonding tool more heavily than women use common experiences and conversation. It's a definite cultural construct because, in pre-feminist times, men had closer and more emotional relationships publicly with each other. This "dude-i-zation" of culture, I think, is one of the largest drawbacks to the feminist movement's influence -- it's intentions were to free women, but instead it's, so far, partially freed women and more dramatically imprisoned men.
It's why we need to keep fighting.
Aw geez this guy is bleeding all over my shoes is quiet desperation the definition of "feminist"? My girls and I talk about dudes, dudes do the same that's life. Does everything always have to be about seeking victimhood? The things I hear women say about men would make a sailor blush.
Objectification isn't specific to gender. Just because both sexes partake doesn't mean its a healthy response.
nor does finding it morally reprehensible make it an unhealthy response.
Okay, then it doesn't make it an EMOTIONALLY healthy response. How's that?
We lived in a highly-pornified culture.
Damn right women can objectify men, and are talking in ways now that very few women would have talked 30 or 40 years ago. Have you read "Female Chauvanist Pigs?"
That doesn't mean it's a good thing, though. I can be guilty of objectifying men, but I think it's something I've started to outgrow. After finally meeting someone who was cute, but whose mind I found wildly sexy, my priorities are changing a little. I think it's healthy. And I wonder how many people never open themselves up to that possibility because they've become convinced that they will never meet a "soul mate" so the outer shell and other basic things are what are important...
i heart you. please continue being yourself and doing your thing!
Marc, your fellow troops are the ones who are at the level of a seventh grader, not you.
Thank you for writing this. I am lucky enough to have a feminist boyfriend, but it's so hard to find men willing to identify as feminist or even take responsibility for the rape culture in which we live. So thank you for doing what you do.
I've been thinking seriously about this for awhile now, and especially after reading a book called "The Brain That Changes Itself." (There is one chapter on porn.) I'm not against porn and I don't think you can lump it all into one category. Do I find some of it repulsive? Yes. Have I been the target of groups like the one Marc describes? Absolutely, and it can get really scary. I lost interest in my ex because of his sexual tastes, which changed radically as he discovered the internet. I started watching porn with him and continued to watch on my own (after we broke up) until one day a couple years ago when I realized a few things. 1) My ability to masturbate to my own fantasies was gone, completely. 2) I started seeing women in a really ugly light. For example, to this day, if I see an Asian woman, I think the most vile things. I absolutely cannot look at any Asian female without seeing her through the porn lense. I'm working diligently at it, but I have to retrain my brain. I'm not sure I'll ever get back to that nice place where I just saw a human being. 3) It was ruining sex and intimacy in lots of subtle ways.
I did not look at porn until I was an adult, so it took only a few years of looking at it for these changes to take place. I have always had a strong libido and did quite well without the porn. I guess I got curious at first and then got a little hooked by the easy titillation and the peer pressure of the porn culture we live in. How did I stop? First, I cut back to images only, no moving parts. Toward the end, I looked only at penises. It all became rather clinical and I finally was able to stop. I am into a phase of exploring deep intimacy with my significant other so I am pretty serious about not falling off the wagon. Another point, I never had a rape fantasy before I watched porn. Intense sexual play, yes, but my fantasies were much more empowering for me. Not so after a couple years of watching porn. I can indeed imagine what men think of when they see women and it isn't good. All that said, I'm sure there are ways to use porn without lots of negative side effects. I just don't know where you draw the line.
Holy shit. This post took gonads (ovaries or testes, take your pick) the size of soccer balls. If only we all were this honest.
Porn about Asians made in America (as compared to made in Asia) is really ... something else. It brings all sorts of racial stereotypes into the picture, showing a extremely uncomfortable view of cultural imperialism. Many Asian women living in largely Caucasian countries feel uncomfortable when they are reduced to backpage ads and late night tv erotic ads.
My experience has been the reverse.
I hardly ever read pornographic literature before my mid-twenties. I tried to repress certain disturbing sexual fantasies; I created a cycle of shame, body-hatred, and anti-sexuality that reinforced the disturbing sexual fantasies. Reading pornographic literature helped me understand myself and recognize my desires. I am still somewhat uneasy with my submissive side, but I am much happier than before, and am able to form stronger friendships; I haven't had the chance to build any romantic relationships yet.
Of course, I am having my second puberty right now, and that has changed far more than the fiction could.
Marc,
So, the American military's own 200 year old well documented rape culture had nothing to do with how your comrades reacted to that woman airman?
As for the porn thing - as a serviceperson, I'm sure you've been stationed in posts where pornography is illegal (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Emirate of Kuwait, the Republic of Iraq, the State of Afghanistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the State of Singapore - I could go on, but I HOPE you get my point)
Is there not rape and objectification in those countries as well?
I think it's way too easy to get on the Porno-Is-Evil bandwagon - way too easy, and way too close to the worldview of our enemies, the fundamentalists!
Finally, do you have an alternative vision of masculine sexuality to offer to your male comrades in arms?
A vision which allows them to express their sexuality in such a way that doesn't objectify women, but also will still enable them to achieve sexual success with their female peers?
If you can figure that out, please let me know, because I'll be more than happy to share it with my male fellow construction workers (my coworkers are a lot like your fellow airmen when it comes to objectifying women).
But that be a 7th grader who doesn't notice women sexually and worships mommy thing - that's going to go over like a lead balloon - as I'm sure you already know!
The problem is, is that modern society fuses porn with misogyny. Similar to how alot of 'manhood' is misogynistic and depends on being misogynistic.
Pornography is certainly a controversial subject. For me, its about choice. I never found X rated flicks that arousing, but I suspect many men who watch these movies don't necessarily disrespect women or see them as nothing more than sex objects. Anti porn advocates would like to claim porn increases sexual assaults, but such a theory has never been substantiated. I think your engaging in communal blame.
What about the women who choose to perform in these movies? Have they all been victimized by the big, bad porn director? I think your engaging in a form of communal victimization. In fact, many former porn stars have became directors and some have actually started their own companies. Women who want to incorporate a different form of arousal, one that appeals more to their own gender. Isn't that empowering?
Personally, I'm not an anti feminist male. There are many positive things the movement has accomplished, but pornography is one issue that I tend to disagree with.
Sometimes I think the feminist movement can be somewhat restrictive of women's behaviour. Its almost like some want to 'guilt' women into living a life style that fits a small percentage of the belief system.
This site is a perfect example. Ms. Valenti promotes complete sexual freedom -- which I agree with. Sexual freedom sometimes incorporates non deviant sexual activities we might not agree with.
I first interpreted seeing women the way 7th grade boys do as "being a horny little pervert." A lot of the boys I knew at that age enjoyed making crude comments and sexual harassment.
"Further, given that the major source of women's oppressions and plights are the actions of men, there also needs to be more focus on men's studies - that is, how men fit within patriarchy and what gender roles require of them. After all, if men's actions are causing women pain, then we need to figure why men are taking those actions."
I'm reading "Manhood in America" by Michael S. Kimmel right now and how he explains it, is that while all history is about men, men have no history as men because no one bothers to look at how masculine ideals and the pursuit of manhood affect men and the everyday and history-making decisions they make or have made. It's interesting to see how the ever-changing ideas about manhood and masculinity have affected men - largely negatively.
I just thought I'd bring it up for anyone who is interested. I haven't finished it yet, but it's quite interesting so far. He also wrote "Guyland", which I just read and which deals with young men and various "rites-of-passage" men go through in America today, as well as their ways of bonding and of proving their masculinity, etc. There are a few chapters on the role of porn and misogyny in male-bonding and validation in there. Kimmel (gender sociologist) is an authority on the topic of men and masculinity, so you might want to check out some of his other works, too. I've only read these two.
I definitely think that we should start examining how gender affects men, same as we have for women. There's a lot of crap that comes with privilege. Men need to realize feminism isn't about making their lives suck.
Mr. Kimmel is a Professor at Stony Brook University. If you want an A in his class, just agree with everything he peddles. If you debate him, he'll try and humiliate you. {notice I use the word 'try'.} He's also somewhat of a hypocrite considering he seems to patronize the female students like they just fell off the turn up truck.
Here's an interesting little tidbit, Kimmel has the "Knight in Shining Armour Syndrome." Though he doesn't outright admit it, he's a big advocate of chivalry. During class he'll treat a girl like an idiot, but hold the door open for her during the end of class.
In fairness, I did enjoy his book.
How do you know? I have to admit I get that sense from some of his material. But then again, I've never met him so I don't know.
"turnip truck"........though "turn up truck" sure is an interesting visual!
Another Thought:
It seems the author of this piece is equating masculinity and pornography as a single entity. Quite frankly, its an unfair and insulting equation.
Could you imagine the backlash if I evoked such a primitive stereotype about femininity?
You seem to have a conflict with your masculinity and how it relates to feminism. Honestly, I really don't see how you can balance the two. I like this site and I agree with a lot of the subject matter, but I'm not a feminist.
You don't think someone can be masculine and feminist? I don't see how they are at all incompatible. Are you just scared of ever being labeled "feminine"?
And I didn't interpret anything in the OP as having a conflict with masculinity and feminism. Someone who has strong convictions and sticks to them seems more masculine than someone who orders his entire existence around the fear of being deemed un-masculine. That is if you are defining 'masculine' as something like strong and confident, and not defining 'masculine' to mean nothing more than the absence of anything 'feminine'
Have you ever read Patrick D. Hopkins' Gender Treachery? He posits that the reason some men have so much vitriol towards other men who display any feminine characteristics is that they have so much of their identity tied up in notions of 'masculinity' (defined simply as NOT a woman), that any threat to traditional definitions of masculinity is a threat to personal identity.
I saw a bumper sticker once that read "Real Men Wear Pink." I took it to mean that men who are comfortable with their sexuality don't feel the need to abide by outmoded, rigid (and I have to say, totally arbitrary) constructions of masculinity. I've never seen any conflict between healthy masculinity (that is, not drawing its power and meaning from denigrating others) and feminism. If you can't reconcile the two, you're really missing out!
Sergeant Marc LNU:
Coming onto a website and denigrating your fellow servicemen is completely unsatisfactory.
You made some reference of going back to your tent, so I assume you are in the field on a training op or deployed.
I don't give a damn if someone interrupted your milkshake, rootbeer float or haagen daz. There are service men and women who are going through more important shit than your personal feminist/masculinity crisis.
From a former non-commissioned officer, you need to get your damn head in the right game. If you are deployed it is completely unacceptable to have your head in this game and take the time to post on feminsting. Worry about feministing, feminism, and all that over stuff later. Your concern should be the care of your soldiers and your mission, and that should be a full time job, Sergeant.
And that does not depend on if you are combat arms or some admin pogue. It does not matter if you are on some sort of liberty or waiting for a flight out, in the field or deployed.
And as I said above, even if you are in garrison it is completely unsat to dis your soldiers on the web; As a soldier, and as an non-commissioned officer.
Danm. Just god damn.
-Steve LNU
USMC
But sitting at a table and denigrating your fellow servicemen while they walk past is satisfactory?
Of course it is not.
Sergent Marc LNU need to act like a damn Sergent. And sometimes that included putting a boot in someones ass.
"that included putting a boot in someones ass."
Not literally, but how would that happen in the military structure?
It's not okay for him to call them on their sexism but it's perfectly okay for people within the military to treat the women they work with like pieces of meat. Wow. No wonder rape culture is so prevalent in the army with thoughts like that. Wow.
Does it really seems Marc's fellow servicemen are completely dedicated to the mission? Seems like they spend more time objectifying women than doing anything else. With comments like that I can't really be surprised that rape culture is so prevalent in the military.
Actually, in their defense, they're some of the most hardworking and dedicated people I've ever worked with. This is not an excuse for the behaviors, however; and as far as my tryin to "diss" them, that wasn't my intention at all. The post - if one actually reads the majority of it, is about the need to deconstruct masculinity and porn culture - all of which are important, whether one is in the military or not.
It seems Steven takes personal exception to the fact that I can have my own thoughts - or that I don't blindly accept behaviors that I deem sexist. But that's his problem, not mine.
As for having a crisis with my own masculinity - there's absolutely no crisis. I know absolutely where it stand. It seems a person who doesn't feel the need to examine one's actions and standings within the world is one that's got the problem.
(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say that you are any different than you are saying, nor that you are wrong to be saying it.)
You know, it occurs to me that the idea of a "crisis of masculinity" being such a big deal is a pretty absurd notion in the first place. I mean, so what if you were having a "crisis of masculinity"? Would that make you any less of a man, any less of a human being?
That sounds like possible homophobia and transphobia to me.
And it's also an interesting feature of being male and/or having "masculinity". I had a "crisis of femininity" years ago, where I went through a huge, long examination of all the actions that I use to perform femininity. I experimented with all kinds of things, including dressing drag. But no one thought twice about it. In fact, I still examine the ways I perform femininity on a regular basis, but that original "crisis" helped me figure out that I am comfortable with both femininity and masculinity, and in which ways.
So for someone to act like a "crisis of masculinity" is such a horrible thing strikes me as defensive and short-sighted.
" I went through a huge, long examination of all the actions that I use to perform femininity"
Me too. Except I went through my crisis of femininity during high school. Not the most popular time to do it, but that was the point. Ironically, I had issues with calling myself feminists though that's exactly what I was doing. I wouldn't shave my legs (or would, only for gym class, but maybe only once a week, so that theyr'd be stubble ) or wear make-up. I wore my old clothes repeatedly (of course washed, but I didn't really buy new ones). I still had freinds, but I went in a 180 degree change from where I was a year before, which was exercise anorexic, always had to have make-up on, and always had to have $100 dollar expensive jeans. At some point, something snapped and I got angry.
Its good I did.
I call total BS on this. First of all, the subtle attempt to take a jab at Marc's point of view by focusing on his drink of all things, is pretty damn lame. Second, what about standing up for the female soldier who was being hassled, objectified, and degraded while at "work" and WHILE SERVING HER COUNTRY? Soldiers who don't have an original thought or a genuine set of personal values in their heads are not good for themselves, each other, or the country. Your post is an attempt to shame an individual for speaking freely and for talking through what he experiences in an already difficult environment. Every unspeakable thing (torture, rape, etc.) that has happened throughout military history has been allowed to happen because no one stood up to their fellow soldiers. Soldiers should be encouraged to call their comrades out more frequently. Every step we take in this direction is a step forward. Every time we keep our mouths shut in the face of a degrading act, it serves only to strengthen the cowards among us.
I wish that I could say something so intelligent right now. Because I know I have the capacity to. But all I can seem to come up with is...SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your a got damn idiot! That's it. I'm trying to find better words...but they seem to fail me. This is the only thing I can say to really encompass the way I feel about your response to this man's WONDERFULLY USEFUL post. Your a total tool. I'll leave the more intelligent response to someone else.
From the sounds of it, the OP had some time off from his duties when this occurred and when he wrote it. "Time off" means not only that he is allowed to do something else but that he should; it's not healthy for anyone to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If he chooses to think about feminist issues and post on Feministing in this free time of his, who the hell are you to tell him that he can't?
And I really don't expect the people on feministing to understand. Its not that he used his free time. service men and women get shit-faced drunk on their free time and posting on the interwebs is more productive than that.
Its a military thing, and a standard of behavior that a non-commissioned officer is suppose to adhere to.
He held himself out as better than his fellow soldiers. You don't get on-line and broadcast that sentiment all over the internet.
I don't care how sentimental or sweet or thoughtful that appears. If you think you are better than those service men and women around you, you prove it and you say it to their face. You don't this backbiting post on the internet.
And what good does his posting on the internet do? Not one damn bit. He said hiself. A soldier, I assume subordinate to him, told him we was like a seventh grader, and rather than provide correction upon that solider he chose to be quiet.
And then instead of resolving himself to make the Army a better place by figuring out an appropriate way to provide correction to soldiers that do not show the appropriate respect to one another, he comes on feministing and writes a post about it, making sure to note that the behavior disturbed his enjoyment of a rootbeer float.
That does not uphold his duties as a servicemen, a soldier, or a sergeant. Those is the standard I hold him to. Its a high standard to live up to, and not one that most people chose.
But he did.
"Its a military thing, and a standard of behavior that a non-commissioned officer is suppose to adhere to.
He held himself out as better than his fellow soldiers. You don't get on-line and broadcast that sentiment all over the internet.
I don't care how sentimental or sweet or thoughtful that appears. If you think you are better than those service men and women around you, you prove it and you say it to their face. You don't this backbiting post on the internet."
Gawd, this just reeks of 2 things:
1. the environment of brainwashing that occurs in the military - don't think for yourself, do exactly what we say, wrong or right.
2. traditional masculine roles again. backbiting? hardly! he took a situation he encountered and thought more deeply about it. he was using introspection of himself and his situation to say something about society at large. It had almost zero to do with the actual men in the story, but rather what they represented. It seems you are encouraging him to get physical with these men or be confrontational with them instead of dealing with the situation in other ways. Why does he have to be confrontational? That doesn't sound like it will solve any problems. I see nothing wrong with him choosing to work out the situation in another way than "Sergent Marc LNU need to act like a damn Sergent. And sometimes that included putting a boot in someones ass." Wow. and that's supposed to be better than working it out intelligently and intellectually? I get it, in the military it is, right? Violence solves everything and is the answer to anything, right?
The military has a long awful history of terrible things happening (violence against women being covered up by the military instead of being punished, innocent people being raped and attacked by soldiers who had orders to do so, etc) - and it continues because soldiers are taught to "keep quiet" as you say, and do as they are told, and not to think for themselves. This thinking does happen to be useful in wars for killing purposes, but not for anything else. we need to remember that soldiers are human beings too and deserve to be treated humanely, not as robots. They get to partake in introspection and sociological analysis too. They are not devoid of minds and feelings despite what the military wishes. In fact, the military needs more soldiers who will speak out on the many crimes & wrongs that are being committed, and anything in between.
If he was off duty then does he still have the authority to do that (telling his subordinates to knock it off and enforce military beaurocracy)? Second, military personel and women themselves have told men who are acting that way to knock off their behavior only to get socially ostracized and dismissed for future promotion, or alienated by their own crew. I'm sure there are other consequences that they've had, especially the women.
Uh, Steven, actually, if anything at all, I've got all the respect in the world for those Soldiers - all of whom are my rank. What I find problematic is that you are focusing on the minute details of the bigger picture, written to add color and life to the story.
The fact is I care about these Soldiers - if I didn't, I wouldn't be trying to deconstruct masculinity, but rather, be a goodie-two-shoe feminist.
Where in the post did I actually put any of these Soldiers down? I didn't. I painted a picture of what took place; if you took it as insulting, it probably hit a bit close to home, huh?
Fact is, if these were my civilian friends, I'd be doing the same thing. It was an example to make a grander point. But apparently you don't get that point, do you?
If you gave so much of a damn about the military, why the hell aren't you wearing the uniform?
I did my five years, two deployments and got out with 40% disability. Good enough reason to not be in uniform?
In regards to minute details, feminsting and feminism in general is one place where they appear to follow they 'tip of the iceberg' mentality of human behavior.
So I take your 'minute' behavior of deinginrating your fellow soldiers on the internet seriously. You could have issued a correction on the spot. You could have figured out how to handle that situation the next time you encounter it, a solution that combines your feminism and your responsibilities as a sergeant.
Would I have cared if you and they were out of uniform? No. Civilians can act however they want to one another. But you owe more to your fellows than that.
If your fellows are messed up, the proper course of action is to correct them.
It seems like you thought the proper course of action was to leave them messed up and write a blog post. Your free time is your free time, but it seems like you left the real work unfinished.
And I understand it's easier to come here and write about masculinity than to correct your fellow Army dawgs.
But I would have thought as a soldier and a sergeant you could try.
era4allnow already said it better than I can, but I have four things to add:
1. I am sure that there are servicemen and -women other than the OP who read and write on Feministing. There are also many of us who count lots of servicemen and -women amongst our closest friends. To suggest that no one here would understand is ludicrous, silly, and dismissive of the military personnel who are here.
2. This is the same attitude that prevents so many women in the armed forces from being able to deal effectively with the sexual harassment and assault that many experience. This is the same attitude that says that such experiences need to be ignored and covered up rather than prevented and dealt with openly when they do happen, which is far more harmful to a servicewoman than pointing out a few sexist things that someone sees while in the military.
3. You do not lose your right to free speech when you join the military. I know the military itself would like you to think that you do, but you don't, and that would be completely antithetical to what this country stands for.
4. You are doing the exact same thing that you are decrying. Way to be a complete hypocrite.
4. You are doing the exact same thing that you are decrying. Way to be a complete hypocrite.
You have a point.
Corrections are usually given in private, but due to the anonymity of the internetz that was not possible.
Further, sometimes public actions need public corrections.
Further that, he went behind his soldiers back. I am saying it to his (avatars?) face.
Steven -
Then read your freaking email.
Thank you! conversation now continuing via email.
So Steven, what have you personally done when a soldier was deriding his fellow female soldiers as nothing but sex objects?
As far as correcting a fellow soldier,... misogyny is not something that involves a simple correction and then it's done. Misogyny is a pollutant that involves more effort than simply a 'correction,' by beaurocracy and/or a telling off.Its far deeper than that.
As I mentioned above, I did not think most people understood where I was coming from.
And you don't. I don't think I have the skill words words to appropriately explain to outsiders of the military what I was getting at.
Somehow your take away from my post has been that Marc would be wrong for issuing correction to wayward Army dawgs that acted in a sexist manner.
How does saying that you should not denigrate your fellow soldiers (the way I perceived Marc did) translate to it being acceptable to denigrate soldiers based on sex?
I honestly cannot see the leap in that logic.
**Inarticulate rage alert!**
I was raised by an Army vet, a former drill sargeant as a matter of fact, whose pride in his service stemmed from what he believed was America's moral superiority to some of the cultures (past and present) we were fighting. Namely, that this was a country whose laws guaranteed the equality of all its citizens, including his five daughters. Yes, I know that hasn't always worked in practice, and I realize that it may sound like a lot of flag-waving BS to some people. But it's what my dad taught me to believe.
My dad's not too Internet savvy, but if he saw your comments here he would be appalled. If you said these things to his face, he would rip the emblem off your shoulders. It is the *duty* of anyone in uniform to protect, and to treat even the weakest people with respect. This idea of yours that Marc has no right to criticize the actions of other men around him simply because they're in the service is horseshit. If anything, our service men and women have an even greater responsibility to do the right thing *because* they represent this country's values (or at least, what we would like our values to be). It's attitudes like the one you've expressed that lead to rampant sexual assault within the military, and to even worse abuses of power. Shame on you for telling Marc to keep his mouth shut.
And by the way...has it escaped you that the woman they were belittling is a soldier, too?
Steven is a troll. Its clear he has no point being on this blog. He should be shit faced drunk right now rather than posting on a political forum. He thinks thats better than eat your own words.
You know, contrary to popular belief, "service men" are often capable of completing multiple tasks. One can serve and be introspective at the same time.
Go back to buying discount John Grisham books at the PX.
How is not wanting his female service officers to not be denigrated as sexual objects NOT caring about the serviecepeople under his charge?
Damn, just damn....
What are you doing posting on a blog? Sounds like a case of some hypocrisy here. Completely lacking in character soldier.
A vision which allows them to express their sexuality in such a way that doesn't objectify women, but also will still enable them to achieve sexual success with their female peers?
Therein lies the problem. You view male sexuality as inextricably woven with "sexual success" with women, i.e. "getting laid." This takes the women out of the equation entirely. Your sexuality is defined by how many women you can have sex with.
And that's the core of the rape culture, of which porn is a huge part. People can kid themselves all they like, but porn is misogyny writ large. Just because people get off on it doesn't mean it's not degrading to the women who are getting penetrated by multiple men, showered in semen, and called names by their "lovers." That doesn't even include today's hawt bondage/smacking/choking porn.
Waiting for the "but women in porn LOVE fucking!" flamage.
To an extent I agree with you, but I personally know multiple people who have done amateur porn. The majority found it to be a positive, fulfilling experience (they do love fucking, and they're exhibitionists. They're getting paid for their interests, and have the sexual satisfaction of knowing people are looking). The ones who tried it and didn't like it regard it as nothing more than a job that didn't suit them. The environment was apparently pretty great - everyone was encouraged to bring a friend or two so that they wouldn't feel vulnerable and trapped in a room with a bunch of men they didn't know. They could do the shoot with a pre-existing partner. The people who didn't like it called everything to a halt in the middle and were treated respectfully - it instantly ended, they got paid for their time, and went home. These were not explicitly feminist porn sites, either. These were the run-of-the-mill, male-focused amateur sites.
I am VERY aware that that is not everyone's experience doing porn. Probably not even most's. But that does exist, there are women who love doing it. I think it's possible to hate most porn (and the professional porn industry) without pretending exhibitionist women don't exist, or that all porn involves the woman being showered in semen while being choked and called "bitch."
Thank you so much for posting. I've often wondered how men, in the privacy of their minds, cope with patriarchy and manage to defend a system that so often leaves both sexes feeling so totally unsatisfied.
My father considers himself to be a man amongst men, if you get my meaning. Everything is about tradition and masculinity, despite being raised by a retired Chief Master Sergeant (Air Force) who loved to go boating with his two gay friends he was stationed with on Pearl Harbor. When my boyfriend and I come over and he doesn't want to drink beer or watch football, my father looks at me like I might as well be a lesbian (because it would be just as disappointing to him). My gay cousin who lives with my father is always at the barking end of a screaming match about what "used to happen to boys like him" and how my grandfather may have had gay friends but would have been so ashamed to have a "fag in the family".
But in the end, I know my father grew up feeling such pressure to be the kind of man my grandfather was -- an admired member of the community, a person with accomplishment, and an adored and cherished member of the family. Somewhere between confusing accomplishments for masculinity, my dad made his life about male tradition, and lives a subjugated life under those rules. Under the rules of patriarchy, my dad is limited in what hobbies he can enjoy, how close he can feel to friends and family members, how he can cope with the passing of his family, how he must treat retirement, and how he can value his own existence.
In the end, it is obvious that the culture of masculinity -- patriarchy, which is so inclusive of sexual objectification, is shortchanging everyone. We've chosen a system that does not work, but for one reason or another, no one can agree on what else we could do to better our society. You are 100% right about one thing, we can all be certain – women can’t be the only members who voice their unsatisfaction.
Yay for male feminists!
And just a quick note, I'm a straight woman and I feel like everytime I look at a pornographic image, I feel like I'm objectifying women!
I don't understand why porno simpifies male sexuality down to a body part. I mean, I was at a friend's house, looking at the naughty magazines and quite literally, on one page, it was just a picture of a butt hole. A butt hole!!
Geez, if that's what gets men off, why do I bother dressing up and putting on make up?? LOL
It is interesting how many men came out of the woodwork to comment on this post, trying to police Marc's masculinity, just because he dared insult teh porn.
(Of course, that is not directed at any man who is actually a frequent Feministing commenter. Well, besides GREGORYABUTLER.)
Thanks for posting this, Marc. I really appreciate hearing men talk about things like this.
I never really had a problem with porn, in all it's retarded glory, until I met the group of guy friends I hang out with now.
And porn has without a doubt affected the way they see women. Not just in a sexual "in the bedroom" context but... to the degree where they don't see a problem with an adult man drugging and raping a 14 year old non-virgin with prior drug experience. To the point where they discount the long term harm done in molestation and rape. To the point where they have told me they think women WANT to be treated like shit.
Obviously these ideas don't come exclusively from porn. But after months and months of these sorts of things coming up in casual conversation, they have also been candid about the way in which pornography has influenced these ideas.
Obviously there is no simple answer. But come on, yesterday I found some "good quality" "non tacky" Euro porn when cleaning up a friends house. And in the commentary they call the women things like... swine! Slut and whore and all that, I'm accustomed to seeing. But swine? What?
" swine"
Ughhhh....
How bout they maybe don't deserve to have you as a friend anymore...